The Race Card: The Public Speaks
Okay, I’m sick of this topic, but we have gone into it in considerable detail in the comments two posts below, so it’s relevant. Rasmussen did a poll, and while the vast majority of the public thinks McCain’s celebrity ad was NOT racist, a slightly smaller majority thinks Obama’s ‘dollar-bill’ comment WAS:
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.
However, Obama’s comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.
Of course, race plays a role (sigh) in perceptions, as well: most black Americans saw the celebrity ad as racist, but (surprisingly) almost half saw Obama’s dollar-bill comment as racist, too:
Not surprisingly, the McCain ad generates significantly different perceptions along racial and ethnic lines. Most African-American voters—58%–saw the McCain ad as racist. Just 18% of white voters and 14% of all other voters shared that view.
As for Obama’s comment, 53% of white voters saw it as racist, as did 44% of African-Americans and 61% of all other voters.
The demographic goodies keep coming:
There were also significant partisan divides. Democrats were evenly divided as to whether the McCain commercial was racist, and they were also evenly divided on the Obama comment. Republicans, by an 87% to 4% margin, rejected the notion that the McCain campaign ad was racist. But, by a 67% to 26% margin, GOP voters believe that Obama’s comment was racist.
Unaffiliated voters, by a five-to-one margin, said the McCain ad was not racist. By a much narrower 50% to 38% margin, unaffiliateds viewed Obama’s comment as racist.
Overall, just 22% of voters believe that most Americans are racist. That view is shared by 32% of Democrats, 20% of unaffiliated voters and 12% of Republicans. African-American voters are evenly divided on the question.
So, a majority of independents said the McCain ad was not racist, while Obama’s dollar-bill comment was…and Democrats are more likely to view their fellow Americans as racist by a factor of nearly 3-1. Hmmm…nope, I’m going to let it go…
Well, looks like David Axelrod,/a> also agrees that the “dollar bill” comment was racial.
What’s funny is that another Obama staffer tried to suggest that the remark referred to the difference between the personal histories of Obama and the presidents represented on our currency, even though Obama’s surrogates, and, at times, even Obama himself, like to compare him to Lincoln. Did they forget who’s on the five?
Mark, McCain had a web ad out in June that floated the idea that Obama might change our money, complete with a “black guy on the $100 bill image.” Check it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU&eurl=http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/setting-the-rec.html
Your thoughts?
Fargus, you’re grasping at straws. That’s not the point of the ad, and you know it. The ad is clearly tongue-in-cheek and is lampooning the faux Presidential seal that Obama made, an idea that deserved to be lampooned.
Off-topic:
Barack Obama wants FL and MI delegates seated fully at the convention.
At this point, it gives me great pleasure to say, “I told you so.”
As was mentioned in the other thread, in which I was regretfully unable to participate (I was on vacation), you guys are repeatedly guilty of taking these ads way too literally, without any admission that there may, indeed be some nuance and subtext in them. The ad’s tongue-in-cheek, but the imagery is pretty stark.
That’s another thing, Fargus, most people haven’t seen the ad to which Obama was actually responding to (the one with Obama on the dollar bill). Mark’s comparing apples to fountain pens.
Plus, if the poll question read “do you think someone in the black community might view this ad as racist?”, you might have more positive responses, eh?
They keep trying to pit the races against each other with these results, but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not white people understand why black people get upset at this stuff. And if they do, why not have a couple people sit and talk about it. Because the media doesn’t want to heal the race issue. The ratings are way too good.
Yup, that’s the point I forgot to make, Mike, and I thank you for making it. Obama was responding to a little-seen McCain ad, but the first most heard of it was when McCain started throwing Obama’s words up in front of everyone and calling it the race card. What the McCain really means, of course, is that Obama’s playing the race card by being a black guy running for President, but you’re not allowed to say that in polite company.
Why are they even quoting these numbers in this article:
Overall, just 22% of voters believe that most Americans are racist. That view is shared by 32% of Democrats, 20% of unaffiliated voters and 12% of Republicans. African-American voters are evenly divided on the question.
“Most americans are racist”???? Holy crap, 22% of the country thinks that? I wouldn’t even answer “yes” to that question. “Just 22%”? Shoot, that’s almost 1/4 of the country. And they think that MOST americans are racist. That’s actual news. That’s a big deal.
SOME Americans are racist, that’s about all I could say. Less than half probably, but quite a few, but MOST?
Not only that, it doesn’t relate to this issue at all. What conclusion can possibly be drawn about anything else in the article with that data?
Blah.
“What the McCain really means, of course, is that Obama’s playing the race card by being a black guy running for President, but you’re not allowed to say that in polite company.”
No; you’re just not allowed to say that if you think for yourself and don’t parrot the Obama campaign and its surrogates.
The McCain campaign has made no racial comments. Obama suggested that Republicans WILL attempt to “smear” him by saying “did I mention he’s black?” Thus, taken at face value, Obama’s comment indicates that not even he thinks that McCain had resorted to such a tactic when Obama made the comment. Thus, Obama pre-emptively declared himself a victim of racism.
“Republicans” is not synonymous with “the McCain campaign and its affiliates.” You right-wingers’ newfound sense of hyperliteralism is cute, though.
http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2008/8/3/14040/29258
No dog whistles here either. Nothing to see here. No apolocalyse undertones here at all. No misquotes either (leaving out the whole “this isn’t about me…I’ve become a symbol”.)
Blah.
oops, apocalypse. whatever. blah regardless.
The One is an excellent, funny ad.
Effective? I can’t say but the Daily Kos piece, like the response to the Celeb one, says much.
How come only Dems can hear GOP dogwhistles?
How many times has Obama in his own speeches, not an internet ad, taken McCaiin’s “100 year” quote out of context?
That one is far more despicable than the Britney/Paris ad.
A vote for Obama is a vote for the anti-Christ, indeed. I wouldn’t even call it a “dog whistle”, as it’s perfectly blatant in its appeal.
I think it’s time for the gloves to come off, and for Obama to start hitting McCain hard on the issues. On just about every issue, McCain’s position is either completely incoherent or massively unpopular with the electorate at large. I think it would be a mistake to wait till September to start pointing that out.
Bob: So, your estimation of “effectiveness” basically would show that an ad that used the n-word would be “effective” since the daily kos would, presumably, be up in arms about it.
100 years = permanent military bases. Not sure what you’re refering to actually. Why don’t you quote something? And for some reason, I thought the “oh, well he does it too” argument was weak on this site?
Fargus, so McCain ran an ad that responded to Obama remaking the presidential seal in his own image by suggesting he might want to make other things in his own image.
So he showed his picture on the $100 bill.
And that’s racist? A picture of Barack Obama is racist? You do realize that Barack Obama is black, right? So if his picture is on a $100 bill, that would mean a black person’s picture would be on the $100 bill…So if I ran a picture showing Barack Obama making a speech, am I a racist? Because you know, the picture would have a black person in it…
Good God almighty, save me from this nonsense…
If nothing else comes from Obama’s probable victory, I hope this hypersensitivity to perceived slights is put into a permanent grave. When you see racism around every corner, you lessen the impact of actual racism when it is encountered. This is the moral, after all, of Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf, tales we all know from toddler age.
As for myself, I tired of grade school years ago…
I actually think Jacques and Mike are right, though (and sorry, Chris, I know you like this one) about “The One”. I found that ad to be a bit much, given the “Obama as Anti-Christ” meme that some chuckleheads have been sending around. I don’t think the McCain camp MEANT it that way, but in this case, the proximity to an offensive slur DID bother me a bit…
Mark: Here, I will save you. Obama never said the use of his picture on the dollar bill was racist! The stupid ass clown media did! McCain did! He’s the idiot, Mark, not Fargus.
Mike, I guess you missed comment #2 above…true, Fargus didn’t say the ad was racist, but he brought it up in a discussion about race, so I made that assumption. If I’m wrong, Fargus, correct me, and I’ll gladly retract that…
However, rereading Fargus’s #7 comment in light of Mike’s objection, I may indeed have misread Fargus. Again, my apologies if that is the case…
Nope, Mike’s right. In McCain’s “Seal” ad, the power of the imagery comes from how different it is with Obama’s face on it compared to what it is today. If Obama, say, looked a bit like Ben Franklin, then replacing Franklin’s face with Obama’s wouldn’t be any big deal. The subtext is that Obama wants to change this country in a way that will make it unrecognizable to you and me. And proposing such changes is unbearably presumptuous on Obama’s part. And I can think of one particularly salient synonym of “presumptuous.”
Nah, but see, now you’re saying it’s racist – Mike said you DIDN’T say it was racist…so which is it?…
I said it wasn’t ostensibly racist. And Mike’s objection was that Obama didn’t say it was racist. But a lot of the media coverage that’s popped up around all this, including the meme that the McCain campaign has been gleefully advancing, has been that Obama’s arrogant and presumptuous. David Gergen recently said that such a thing is a pretty obvious dog whistle to him, as a Southern man.
What I said was that the ad wasn’t ostensibly racist, and it didn’t use the word “presumptuous,” even. But viewed back through the light of the McCain campaign’s subsequent actions, it’s certainly enough to make me wonder.
Mark: Actually, I wasn’t saying Fargus wasn’t saying the ad was racist, I was saying Fargus didn’t say Obama said the ad was racist. From what I can tell, Fargus seems to be saying that the ad COULD BE racist, but isn’t necessarily. Logically following though, giving the benefit of the doubt in this case is way beyond folly. With the history of political ads and the hours/days/weeks of research that goes into ad campaigns (oh, yes, you think the “think tanks” sit around and write papers all day?, please) to find the nuance that pushes certain buttons, certainly one could at least say “well, I don’t think it’s racist on the surface, but I could see how someone can see extra layers to this thing”. Especially when you (Mark) see them yourself with “the one” ad.
I’m sorry, Jacques, Mike, Peter, et al. I’m not like you and I never will be. I don’t get up in the morning and start looking for things that might offend me. I have some friends who do, and I always feel sorry for them. But, if you look hard enough, I’m sure you will find something that you can claim is offensive. I prefer to live my life a different way.
“Celeb” is racist? Why? As Mark says, because it has a black man in it? No, if the two celebrities were Michael Vick and OJ Simpson, then it would be racist. I submit that if the nominee were, say, Evan Bayh, and he was getting the same kind of adulation that Obama is getting, that McCain would’ve run the same ad. So, would that then be racist? No. Stupid, yes. But Mark and I have already agreed that the ad is dumb. You can’t call it racist just because it has a black man in it. That’s playing the race card, which is exactly how this debate started.
And “The One” is “Anti-Christ”? Oh God, give me a break. That’s such a stretch it barely merits discussion. Are there any upside down crosses? Any pagan symbols? Anyone with horns? Serpents? Angels falling from grace? No, as a matter of fact, the only real “symbol” in it is Charlton Heston as Moses. And if you think that the right is likely to use Charlton Heston as an “anti-Christ” symbol, then you’ve completely lost your mind. The ad merely points out Obama’s perceived messiah complex. Now, to be honest, I don’t think Obama has one. There’s little doubt that he does have a bit of an ego problem, however. You can’t claim the edge in perceptions of subtlety and miss that.
As for Barack Obama and issues, well, the next time he talks (other than his “Blueprint for Socialism” on his website) about real issues and specific solutions will be the first time. That’s why one of the reasons it’s hard for McCain to debate Obama on them. All he can do is tell his positions (which, other than Iraq, are overwhelmingly in the mainstream, sorry Jacques, but that claim doesn’t hold water), and wait for today’s response from “The One”.
I don’t look for things which offend me. However, when I see things which are plainly offensive, I don’t ignore them.
In addition to juxtaposing Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, the ad starts with images of the Washington Monument and the Victory Column at Berlin. Why do you suppose these images — which have absolutely nothing to do with Obama or the purported message of the campaign — are included? Besides the fact that they are obviously phallic images. Why have them in the ad for any reason at all except to be part of a subliminal message?
A talking head pointed out yesterday that the remark from McCain’s campaign manager that Obama dealt a race card from the bottom of the deck comes from the O.J. Simpson trial. Another black man / blond woman thing. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
Given the history of incendiary ads put out by the Repuglicans, the notion that the ad is stupid but innocent is inconceivable.
The Democrats should react in kind and have an ad comparing McCain to Grandpa Simpson.
Sorry, Republicans. Not trying to make up a new word, just too lazy to proofread.
I take it back, Peter. You don’t look for things to offend you. You wait until Bob Herbert tells you what you should find offensive.
I notice that you didn’t refute any of my statements about the racism of “Celeb” and yet still called it racist. And then you included more mindless drivel from Herbert regarding phallic symbols.
Chris: The ad was by the same guy that did the Harold Ford “call me” ad. He was much more subtle.
Nobody has addressed the “played the race card from the bottom of the deck” comment. It is blatantly racist. Obama never mentioned race. McCain is the one that is finding things offensive. He’s the one that played the ‘”race card” card’.
Maybe the Victory Column was in the ad because Obama spoke in front of it? You know, the event that inspired the ad?
No, can’t be. It must be a racist symbol.
The Herbert column, the Rick Perstein screed and the comments here are beyond parody.
mike:
From the Washington Post Fact Checker:
If out of context is good for the goose etc.
It is not a “oh, well he does it too” argument. It is an acknowledgment that the side who starts something cannot complain when the other side does the same thing.
Obama personally twisted the McCain quote. That is worse than an internet ad.
mike, you’re stretching again.
Why is it relevant who made the ad? The ad stands or falls on its own merits. I shouldn’t have to watch an ad, and then go find out who created it to find out if it’s racist. If I can’t determine that on my own, without Bob Herbert’s help or a Snopes investigation into the creators, then it’s not racist.
Yeeesh. You’re sinking to new lows here.
The reason no one has addressed the “played the race card from the bottom of the deck statement” is simple. It’s true and factual, and therefore not racist. Obama directly or indirectly mentions race in nearly ever speech he gives. I’ll give you three quotes from Obama that led to that statement by the McCain camp.
and
and
And, an extra one just for fun:
That, my friend, is textbook, on how to play the race card.
Yeah, Mike. Obama indirectly mentions race every time he appears in public by being black, therefore he’s playing the race card. If he’d just have the good graces to, you know, be white, then we wouldn’t have to be having this discussion.
Chris: Where is that last quote from and what is it refering to? Nobody seems to care.
And, the best part is, it’s true! They’re doing all those things he says by saying “oh, well, that’s playing the race card”. Emails DO say things. Fox News correspondents say things (like “Oh yeah, and he’s black”). They’ve said them all along. And they’ll continue to say them behind closed doors. Much like Obama said “And did I mention he’s black”, behind a closed door, with his freaking donors. That was not in a speech, you’ll notice. The other ones don’t mention race. And, please, if I have to hear another stupid ass pundit say “Barack HUSSEIN Obama, well, it’s his name, isn’t it?” Exactly, so why the “well, it’s his name, isn’t it?” Playing the “it’s his name-card”. “he’s black-card”. That’s not the same as “race-card”.
It’s as though Obama goes around saying “McCain is white and old and has cancerous skin removed quite frequently”. That would be Obama playing the race/old folk card. I hate this “card” business.
Chris: the ad is not racist because there is a black man in it – it is racist for these reasons:
If McCain ran an ad showing Obama eating fried chicken and watermelon, would it be racist? Hey, who doesn’t like fried chicken and watermelon?
The ad would be racist because it ridicules Obama by referencing a racial stereotype. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with chicken or watermelon, but in the context it has an unmistakable racial overtone. You just don’t do it. By the same token, the ad with Britney Spears references maybe the most explosive racial stereotype there is. It’s coy and deniable, but it’s there.
There is a number of people who would vote for Obama if he were white, but who may not vote for him because he is black. That’s just the way things are. It is to the benefit of the McCain campaign to remind them of their misgiving. The campaign can’t do it overtly – that’s out of bounds – but it can and does do it with symbolism and imagery. The black buck / white woman stereotype is even more explosive than something as dumb as fried chicken.
Nothing is put into a political ad by accident. Nobody said, “Gee, let’s have the Washington Monument and the Victory Column – it would look nice and give the ad that je ne sais quoi element.” (sorry, that’s the Kerry campaign) Moreover, no thinking person would give any credence to the ad’s purported story line. (“Look, honey! Paris Hilton is a bimbo! She doesn’t know anything about foreign policy or the economy! And look! There’s Barack Obama! In the same ad! He must be a bimbo too!”)
When you combine all of these things, along with the history of Republican political advertising, then you can’t reach any conclusion except to say that the ad is designed to exploit racist sentiment in a portion of its viewership.
And if you still don’t think the ad is racist, then answer these questions:
1) Was the Harold Ford ad racist? If not, why not? If so, how does it differ from the Britney Spears ad?
2) What exactly does the McCain ad mean when its ad proclaims him to be “the American President which America has been waiting for?”
3) What exactly do Britney Spears and the Washington Monument have to do with Barack Obama?
Spears is there because her current reputation is a bubble head celebrity. And she is highly recognizable.
The Victory Column is there because Obama spoke there as part of his world tour.
“the American President which America has been waiting for?”
To contrast that with Obama is the “the American President which EUROPE has been waiting for”.
The race subtext only exists in your imagination.
Nah, man. Contrast it with Obama being “The foreign-sounding half-African President that Europe has been waiting for.” The whole campaign is designed to make Obama look as foreign, as other, as possible. It’s blatant, and it’s exploitative of the ugliest impulses in our society.
Only in your imagination, Fargus!
As it turns out, some things in my imagination are actually in reality, too. I imagine my dogs are in their kennels right now. Guess what, it’s true!
Victory Column does not equal Washington Monument. False. Does not compute.
The speech at the Victory Column is arguably the high point of the Obama campaign, and it occured while McCain was in the cheese aisle of a supermarket. I doubt the McCain campaign was eager to draw attention to it.
McCain says: I have an idea. I know what can show I’m not a racist. I’ll go to Sturgis!
What a dope.
While at Sturgis, McCain volunteered his wife to enter the (mostly topless) Miss Buffalo Chip contest:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4320977.shtml
Is this campaign high minded, or what?
You know, peter, that sounds an awful lot like something Britney Spears or Paris Hilton would do. McCain’s a dirty old man.
The Washington Monument was not in the ad. There were two pictures of the Victory Column. One close up and one in the distance. Bunch of geniuses.
Obama spoke before this “phallic” symbol. I guess Obama is racist.
I also see you guys are changing the subject now. Sturgis is racist why exactly? Does it ban blacks? Or do blacks not ride motorcycles? Or Dakotas = racist?
Keep it up. You might beat Obama yet.
I didn’t say that Sturgis was racist. Only that volunteering your wife to appear in a topless beauty contest is at best clueless.
An earlier thread on McCain’s inability to use a computer concerned whether or not he is out of touch. Telling bikers that you think it’s a great idea for your wife to view for the coveted title of Miss Buffalo Chip — along with the ads he’s running — is more evidence that McCain is out of touch and the wheels are coming off his campaign.
Sorry, vie for the coveted title of Miss Buffalo Chip. I really ought to proof these things first.
Peter. Others did:
I’m sure McCain will be embarrased once he finds out about Miss Buffalo Pagent. I think he just was not fully briefed (as it were).
But play the out of touch card anyway. I’m sure going negative will work fine for Mr. Hope and Change No More Pollitics as Usual. It can’t possibly hurt his still fluid image.
I’m not here to dump all over McCain. I think he is an honorable guy who has served his country well. However, I think he is far from being qualified to be President.
I think a certain amount of flip flopping is OK, but his current beliefs are breathtakingly different than his former beliefs. (Called Pat Robertson and his ilk “agents of intolerance” until he sucked up to them. Was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. Now says he would vote against the immigration bill which he wrote himself. Etc.)
I think we can all agree that the policies of the Bush administration have been disastrous. To borrow a phrase from George Wallace, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between McCain’s policies and Bush’s.
I think it is fair to ask why a 72 year old man should be President. You don’t see many corporations hire 72 year old CEO’s. In fact, it’s seven years past the retirement age of many (most?) corporations. There’s a reason for that.
However, while admittedly the chances that I would vote for him are slim to none, I always respected the guy and figured he was a plausible candidate for President. Until two or three weeks ago. If he wants to run a campaign on why we should maintain an aggressive presence in Iraq, or drill offshore, or whatever, that’s fine. However, when he started to infer that Obama was traitorous, or snubbed the troops when he didn’t, or is a Britney Spears wannabe, then I lost a lot of respect for him. He should properly be judged on the type of campaign he wages. He’s running for the President of the United States. His campaign is an embarrassment and a disgrace.
Peter, truly, you are parroting Bob Herbert. Chris is exactly right…and the so-called ‘phallic’ content of the ad is based on including the LOCATION THAT OBAMA SPOKE TO A LARGE CROWD AT JUST RECENTLY.
For God’s sake, I refuse to get drawn into this bull**it again. Bob Herbert is a fool, and this idea that not only is the celeb ad racist because it includes (gasp!) white women, but that is doubly racist because it includes white women and a phallic symbol, is in fact the most racist statement I’ve heard yet in this campaign. What’s next? Are we going to be arguing the relative endowments of white men and black men just because Bob Herbert spouts off on a talk show about some anachronistic racial stereotype?
Drop it, please…it’s an embarrassment, and it reveals far more about Bob Herbert than it does about McCain. Other parts of the country may be living in the Civil War area when it comes to race relations, but I assure you we are not in Austin…and I’m sure you and Bob Herbert aren’t on the coasts. Let’s get this debate into the 20th century and focus on the issues…
This is the absolute last time I will respond to this. Period. If others want to continue this debate, you’re doing a fine job without me. But if Bob Herbert (or you, for that matter) wants to call McCain a racist, THAT’s an explosive charge, and you better bring better evidence than this half-baked century-old Freudian bull…
Finally, THE HAROLD FORD AD WAS NOT PUT OUT BY THE MCCAIN CAMP! ENOUGH ABOUT THE GO**AMN HARODL FORD AD!…
Sorry for all the all-caps screaming, but this stuff is exasperating…just as you guys are sometimes disappointed in me, I am VERY disappointed that you have taken this ‘racist’ bait and run with it…and to participate any further in this sinkhole will only depress and anger me, and you know what? Life is too short…
Finally, Peter, you engage in blatant age discrimination against McCain in #47, and THAT’s not cool…AND you parrot the lefty talking point that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between McCain and Bush, and you are far too smart not to know that THAT is horsesh**. I don’t what’s gotten into you, but this is not the reasonable Peter I’ve come to enjoy as a commenter here…but suit yourself…I’m moving on, as a certain lefty organization once suggested…
In regards to my #48 – let’s get the debate into the 21st century even! Why stop at the 20th?…